They did have 2 of their programmers jump ship. It's not like the money boys just said fark you all, we're gonna leave you high and dry while we go chase the next hot thing. Altho as capitalists that is their rightful prerogative.

VC dudes: Welcome to our world, except if we win we get millions and if you win you get a T-shirt, a game, or an album with a fair market value of less than $100.

of course VCs toss i hundreds of thousands to millions and expect to lose money 70% of the time break even 20% make a small gain 9%, and hope that the 1% hits it big is enough to offset the losses and make a nice profit in the mix,

I have yet to encounter someone who has funded a Kickstarter or similar campaign that had the idea it was a guaranteed bet. The overall impression that I have received from others, and the feeling that I have when I "invest", is that I am putting money I can afford to lose into something that I think would be worthwhile to support. If it makes it, fantastic, I get something cool and I get to have been a part of making that happen. If not, well, that sucks, but not every project is going to be a winner. You try to find the ones that you think are worthwhile and have a reasonable chance of success.

Of the five I've backed, I've received one so far. The other four are on track, so we'll see.

timujin:I have yet to encounter someone who has funded a Kickstarter or similar campaign that had the idea it was a guaranteed bet. The overall impression that I have received from others, and the feeling that I have when I "invest", is that I am putting money I can afford to lose into something that I think would be worthwhile to support. If it makes it, fantastic, I get something cool and I get to have been a part of making that happen. If not, well, that sucks, but not every project is going to be a winner. You try to find the ones that you think are worthwhile and have a reasonable chance of success.

Of the five I've backed, I've received one so far. The other four are on track, so we'll see.

Of the seven I've back - 6 have delivered. The remaining one went off course but a third party has stepped in and put it back on course. So overall - things have worked out well.

The problem with KS is obvious: People see legit ventures getting oodles of funding and think they can get the same for their idea for a game about training a virtual dog to bark commands at a 3D yeti in a mecha jump suit that fights llama bombers while solving sudoku puzzles rendered in 8-bit graphics that morph into craft ideas for your wedding planner.

tillerman35:The problem with KS is obvious: People see legit ventures getting oodles of funding and think they can get the same for their idea for a game about training a virtual dog to bark commands at a 3D yeti in a mecha jump suit that fights llama bombers while solving sudoku puzzles rendered in 8-bit graphics that morph into craft ideas for your wedding planner.

KS is liable to destroy the VC system meaning that sole ownership of something big is going to remain with it's creators and instead of going IPO they'll just enjoy the massive profits.

Facebook would not have gone public if not for the VC demanding they make an IPO. It could have gone on making hundreds of millions each year but now it might implode as everyone mistakes it's stock performance as it's popularity. (Hint, it's a $4 stock for as many shares as they issued.)

Oh, you thought you were going to develop a game for $25k? That's cute.

What I don't get is why people donate to projects that are obviously asking for too little money. It costs money to make things, you're not getting something for nothing. More than likely, what you're getting is actually nothing.

timujin:I have yet to encounter someone who has funded a Kickstarter or similar campaign that had the idea it was a guaranteed bet.

Reaper. Hands down, Reaper. I've bought plenty of stuff from them before, they have the experience, facilities, they just needed a little bit extra to bring a large range to market quickly. Adding to the pledge didn't take much.

I also funded the new Tea Party (as in Jeff Martin) album, safe in the knowledge that I'd get it.

Did a couple of others, knowing that the person/people have the ability to make good... A couple where they have the ability, but it could possibly fall over... and a couple that are gambles.

There have been a lot of kickstarter successes so I'm not keen on writing off the entire idea of crowd-sourcing and especially crowd-funding. What people need to realize (and evidence suggests we have realized to some degree) is that deliverables and reputations are tantamount to a solid end product. You can gamble on John Videogames if you so desire. On the other hand, Chris Roberts shiats gold and is routinely ignored, yet through the medium of crowd-sourcing he can achieve something publishers considered bankrupt. Let's don't count this avenue out just yet.

Ogre840:tillerman35: The problem with KS is obvious: People see legit ventures getting oodles of funding and think they can get the same for their idea for a game about training a virtual dog to bark commands at a 3D yeti in a mecha jump suit that fights llama bombers while solving sudoku puzzles rendered in 8-bit graphics that morph into craft ideas for your wedding planner.

Oh, you thought you were going to develop a game for $25k? That's cute.

What I don't get is why people donate to projects that are obviously asking for too little money. It costs money to make things, you're not getting something for nothing. More than likely, what you're getting is actually nothing.

The issue was not the money, but that two of the programmers jumped ship.

timujin:I have yet to encounter someone who has funded a Kickstarter or similar campaign that had the idea it was a guaranteed bet. The overall impression that I have received from others, and the feeling that I have when I "invest", is that I am putting money I can afford to lose into something that I think would be worthwhile to support. If it makes it, fantastic, I get something cool and I get to have been a part of making that happen. If not, well, that sucks, but not every project is going to be a winner. You try to find the ones that you think are worthwhile and have a reasonable chance of success.

Of the five I've backed, I've received one so far. The other four are on track, so we'll see.

This.

I've backed one that I consider a sure bet, but that's because I actually KNOW the guy running it (so that one doesn't really count). The others I've backed I consider to be relatively safe bets, but I've never put in more than I could afford to lose.

For my current stuff...Shaker (CRPG): Looks like it didn't make the cut... still 14 days to go, but only 1/4 of the way to being funded, and the developers are pulling it. Of course, since it never funded my $15 pledge was never actually charged.Project Eternity (CRPG):Funded for more than triple the goal. I'm sure everyone here already knows about it, and I think it's likely Shaker would have done better if it hadn't been up against this behemoth. $25 is worth it if they deliver, and nothing to worry about if they fail.Numenera (P&P RPG): Funded for more than 25 times the goal. I'm pretty sure Monte Cook will deliver, but if it fails I'm out a whole $50... the horror. On the other hand, if it succeeds I get a dozen rulebooks and a character creation app.

The Reuters article about the LED bulb is more interesting. I think when you start giving money for projects that involve technology that's revolutionary in some way you have to be wary. It can take years to create something for the end user and millions of dollars. I don't think some people understand that.

I pledge money that I can afford to lose. Simple as that. So far, I have a pretty good track record (46 pledges - 41 successes, 1 failure to deliver, 4 in progress).

It's fun and pointless, and I get lots of really weird stuff to clutter up my life with. I also tend to avoid the music, art (mostly), dance, and theater sections of Kickstarter. LOTS of hipster crap on there that's not "I have an idea and a model, I just need money" but rather "Help me do something I've been toying around with". I'll pledge money to the former, not the latter.

Gadgets and games are much more fertile ground for improvements and innovation. I've gotten some really sweet things by dropping cash. If you do your homework (or only wait to fund projects that are already funded, as I have on a couple of questionable ones), it's like shopping on Amazon.

This is my problem with crowd sourcing, and i have seen some real local examples. The basic idea is if it works, the guys running it make off like bandits. If not, fark it sorry about your luck. Everyone likes to say 'yeah be a part of this idea', the thing is you aren't. You are paying in advance for dvd, or poster or whatever. How about we found a mini ipo model. If you really believe in your shiat you sell off equity. fark your tshirt for 25, i want .1% of the profit.

NickelP:This is my problem with crowd sourcing, and i have seen some real local examples. The basic idea is if it works, the guys running it make off like bandits. If not, fark it sorry about your luck. Everyone likes to say 'yeah be a part of this idea', the thing is you aren't. You are paying in advance for dvd, or poster or whatever. How about we found a mini ipo model. If you really believe in your shiat you sell off equity. fark your tshirt for 25, i want .1% of the profit.

Problem with that is it's much more difficult to setup the legal framework necessary for enforcing that arrangement. Certainly much more difficult than clicking a simple "Donate" button and transfering some paypal funds.

Lost Thought 00:NickelP: This is my problem with crowd sourcing, and i have seen some real local examples. The basic idea is if it works, the guys running it make off like bandits. If not, fark it sorry about your luck. Everyone likes to say 'yeah be a part of this idea', the thing is you aren't. You are paying in advance for dvd, or poster or whatever. How about we found a mini ipo model. If you really believe in your shiat you sell off equity. fark your tshirt for 25, i want .1% of the profit.

Problem with that is it's much more difficult to setup the legal framework necessary for enforcing that arrangement. Certainly much more difficult than clicking a simple "Donate" button and transfering some paypal funds.

I understand this, and think maybe it is time we ease some of that up for companies under 100k. We have already actually seen the equity raising laws relax somewhat.

That wasn't my point though. All I was saying is don't act like i am the savior of the farking world because i bought a tshirt. I am tired of getting emails from companies about how they need my help to accomplish their noble mission and here is the link to help out. Just farking say we have this kickass idea, if you are willing to prepay it can really help us make it happen and we would appreciate it. I dunno i am in some nonprofits and community groups and i just see way to many for profits using this like they are charities who need assistance.

I'd be leery of any kickstarter software projects that 'employ' programmers, as opposed to being run by programmers. I don't know anything about this particular project, but there's a lot of negative stereotypes about "idea guys" in indie software, and for good reason.

I've backed a bunch of kickstarter projects, a few indiegogo causes, and several micro-loans. I have yet to be screwed over. No games/software though. Mostly books, art, music, comics, charity, or small businesses trying to expand in some way.

Typically I hand over money to projects that I would otherwise have no problem freely donating money to with no expectations of anything in return. Getting something in return is a nice bonus.

natmar_76:Kickstarter is donation, investment in small business. It's not a way to get cheap games or your name in lights.

Spend your money wisely, on solid projects, and be prepared for some of your investments to go belly up, just like the stock market. Don't whine about it like a child. That's life.

I'd go even further -- it's merely digital panhandling. It's like giving the guy on the corner five bucks to "help clean up his life" and then biatching when you see him the next day, still drunk and soiling himself.

Oh, you thought you were going to develop a game for $25k? That's cute.

What I don't get is why people donate to projects that are obviously asking for too little money. It costs money to make things, you're not getting something for nothing. More than likely, what you're getting is actually nothing.

The issue was not the money, but that two of the programmers jumped ship.

If the loss of two software guys is enough to tank your project, you're doing it wrong.

Sargun:MrEricSir: Sargun: The issue was not the money, but that two of the programmers jumped ship.

If you read the summary on Kickstarter, it's pretty clear that it was about the money -- the main programmer was working on this in his spare time, and gave up when he got a full-time job.

The guy already had a job, and then went to make this, and then jumped for another job. They had enough money to last a bit while longer, and the game is mostly complete.

Apparently the problem is that the main programmer convinced the creator that they 'needed' to write the thing with Go instead of C++. Now the creator unsurprisingly can't find anyone who can finish the project.

starsrift:I'd be leery of any kickstarter software projects that 'employ' programmers, as opposed to being run by programmers.

At the same time, games made by programmers tend to end up looking more like Minecraft than Skyrim. As a programmer, I know that the skillset for programming and game design are not the biggest overlap on the Venn diagram. In general, you want to look for a team or a studio, that already has developers committed to the project through completion.

I did actually throw in on Haunts, mostly because a friend of mine was excited about the game, and I figured, "what the heck". Once funding closed, it rapidly became obvious that this guy didn't know how to run a project or communicate to customers.

I consider funding something on Kickstarter in the same way I think of giving to charity. Most likely, my money is gone and didn't really help anything. maybe I got a t-shirt. however, there is a slim chance that my money helped someone do something. that's nice.

I don't think you should be funding these things expecting returns. It's a charity. If the ideas were that great, they'd be looking for investors and probably finding them. If the idea was that great, I'd rather give money as an investor and get some equity and be a part of the project.

sometimes these projects are even started by real geniuses of their trade. However, something the real world has taught me, genius is not the only requirement in a successful project. I imagine some of the reason these geniuses resort to kickstarter is that they are not very good at managing things or getting along with people, or the business side. Sure, they may be genius at making a video game, but they may suck balls at managing a team, managing their finances, and everything else that is as important as the original genius when it comes to finishing a project.

pute kisses like a man:If the ideas were that great, they'd be looking for investors and probably finding them. If the idea was that great

You'd think that, but it's not really true. The guys behind Project Eternity commented that they approached game publishers, and all of the game publishers thought the idea was great- and then suggested the studio get Kickstarter funding, anyway. Game publishers love Kickstarter because it lets them do the publishing (and money-making) part, without investing in the up-front costs of production.

There are plenty of Kickstarters that are looking for, and finding, investors. Many of the more interesting, fund-intensive projects offer up reward tiers in the five figure range- and people claim them.

Very few of the interesting and well-funded kickstarters are some lone "genius" with a dream and no social skills. To the contrary, in many cases it's a team of people with a prototype of a product and a desire to bring it to market. They're using Kickstarter to get funding without giving equity. It's a great business model for the right kind of business.

Having backed six Kickstarters and successfully running one of my own, I only go in on projects that are run by people with a proven track record or that I won't be upset if the project fails.

So far of those six, I've only received the finished product on one, but the others are doing good with regular updates and progress reports. None of them have disappeared and all of them have track records of delivering on Kickstarters.